|
Post by peterboat on Apr 30, 2016 12:46:38 GMT
I listened to the show. I have to say the title it was promoted with was rather stupid, and had no hope of gaining any sympathy. This was evident at the end of the show when Jeremy stated most callers were in favour of the trust.Not surprising, most people like have too much time on their hands. While the poor sods trying to bring up their kids on a boat are out there toiling in the real world! I agree with you Its how do we get those moorings through? We all know what its like everybody will be up in arms when its on their back door. My mooring is far from ideal but its home and at the moment suits me. The council know people live there but choose to turn a blind eye, I do have an address so its no problem but others pay council tax there and that saved me in a run in with DVLA and the council. Whats needed is waste land in industrial areas so no one will complain just like my mooring OK so you're happy for the council to turn a blind eye to your liveaboard mooring, but not for CRT turn a blind eye to people mooring where they can take their kids to school - in case it impinges on your hobby in future, right? Very caring of you... Listened to the programme and it allowed both sides to air their views OK, but then got a bit muddled up with the issue of VM overstayers. Well the council have to house people but CRT is a navigation authority so no they have an obligation to see that boaters obey the the 95 act move every 14 days etc and satisfy the trust etc
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 30, 2016 12:58:06 GMT
peterboat said: "Because I dont do anything wrong" and then: "My mooring is far from ideal but its home and at the moment suits me. The council know people live there but choose to turn a blind eye" Does the 'blind eye' choosing affect you? If so, that would suggest you are doing something 'wrong'. And this: "Whats needed is waste land in industrial areas" - as in rubble and old concrete bases and the remains of fires and kids throwing stones and general dereliction and decay? No thanks! Those who own industry should be responsible for the tidying up afterwards, in my opinion. Otherwise it's just 'rape and bugger off'. Tax paradises anyone? 'Affordable moorings' is like saying 'affordable housing' to local councils. Apart from some idealogical socialist bodies, landlords are out to make a profit pure and simple - and if you can't afford it, someone else will come along who can. Human nature is like being at the rodeo - for how long can you keep riding on other peoples' backs? Two ways to make money: become a businessman/politician/conman, or get yourself educational qualifications of high standards and then you can cherry-pick your profession and then demand a professional salary. Actually, let's group politicians and conmen into the same category. Even 'professionals' are at the mercy of these back-stabbing pond-life creatures. No I have a home address foxy in New Whittington. so I am not doing anything wrong. Our bit of industrial land was cleared leaving concrete to park on the trees, grass, etc have taken over the site so it looks ok. I pay a £1000 a year for my mooring which is cheap I am off grid but we have water on tap so it works for me, In my bit of bankside I have an apple tree and cherry tree, various fruit trees have been planted all the way along the bankside with blackberries which grow up the fence. Around the country there are lots of spots like this that could be used for online marinas which in my opinion would work
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 30, 2016 13:29:44 GMT
It wasnt for you foxy it was for the others you know what its like
|
|
|
Post by Higgs on Apr 30, 2016 14:06:06 GMT
It will be interesting to see, in 10 years' time, how things have changed on the canal system. Will things be pretty much the same as they are now? Will CRT itself even still exist? What if the Saudi Arabians buy up CRT and start running the show - mooring fees and licence fees upped by three times all of a sudden?
It wouldn't happen. But, the canal is not a boat-based system. You might well expect turnstiles on the towpath. 300 million (visits) x 50p, that's enough to keep everything ticking over.
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Apr 30, 2016 14:40:46 GMT
Whether rightly or wrongly, a CC-er is supposed to be on a continuous cruise around the inland waterways. It is completely contrary to the definition of CC to do it whilst your kids are at school. It simply is not for those sort of boaters. CC-ing is for those that don't want a home mooring because they don't WANT to remain in the same place all the time! "Those are my opinions. If you don't like them, I do have others!" Its a fair opinion Loafer but is it relevant considering where we are at the present time, we at present have a recommendation of 20 miles,what about that and the historical encouragement of Liveaboard boaters even if that encouragement was by turning a blind eye ? I'm not sure cds. I did read the 1995 guff years ago and I seem to recall that nothing much has changed, with recent difficulties simply highlighted by increased enforcement over the last few years. CC-ers ALWAYS had to 'move along'. If you can't 'move along' then you can't be a continuous cruiser! OTOH I do have a measure of sympathy for the poor or the long-term ill people, and wouldn't object to a third type of license - that of a continuous moorer. Away from VMs and water points of course, with the local council picking up the tab for any extra mooring payments required by CRT. I just DON'T see how we could allow SOME people to be allowed to stay put without a proper mooring, whilst others have to pay for the privilege. This isn't a rant, by the way, just my long-held opinion. I have seen the results of some long convoys of 'CC-ers' taking over lengths of towpath for ages, stepping over all their shite whilst out with the dog and I get a bit annoyed by it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 15:28:37 GMT
Its a fair opinion Loafer but is it relevant considering where we are at the present time, we at present have a recommendation of 20 miles,what about that and the historical encouragement of Liveaboard boaters even if that encouragement was by turning a blind eye ? I'm not sure cds. I did read the 1995 guff years ago and I seem to recall that nothing much has changed, with recent difficulties simply highlighted by increased enforcement over the last few years. CC-ers ALWAYS had to 'move along'. If you can't 'move along' then you can't be a continuous cruiser! OTOH I do have a measure of sympathy for the poor or the long-term ill people, and wouldn't object to a third type of license - that of a continuous moorer. Away from VMs and water points of course, with the local council picking up the tab for any extra mooring payments required by CRT. I just DON'T see how we could allow SOME people to be allowed to stay put without a proper mooring, whilst others have to pay for the privilege. This isn't a rant, by the way, just my long-held opinion. I have seen the results of some long convoys of 'CC-ers' taking over lengths of towpath for ages, stepping over all their shite whilst out with the dog and I get a bit annoyed by it. I agree with you entirely its the definition of moving along thats the problem
|
|
|
Post by peterboat on Apr 30, 2016 17:07:50 GMT
I'm not sure cds. I did read the 1995 guff years ago and I seem to recall that nothing much has changed, with recent difficulties simply highlighted by increased enforcement over the last few years. CC-ers ALWAYS had to 'move along'. If you can't 'move along' then you can't be a continuous cruiser! OTOH I do have a measure of sympathy for the poor or the long-term ill people, and wouldn't object to a third type of license - that of a continuous moorer. Away from VMs and water points of course, with the local council picking up the tab for any extra mooring payments required by CRT. I just DON'T see how we could allow SOME people to be allowed to stay put without a proper mooring, whilst others have to pay for the privilege. This isn't a rant, by the way, just my long-held opinion. I have seen the results of some long convoys of 'CC-ers' taking over lengths of towpath for ages, stepping over all their shite whilst out with the dog and I get a bit annoyed by it. I agree with you entirely its the definition of moving along thats the problem It is the issue for me as well CRT say 15 - 20 miles per year which I think is very reasonable but to others 200 yards per year is too much! Its the balance which has to be right for everybody
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2016 17:12:25 GMT
It is the issue for me as well CRT say 15 - 20 miles per year which I think is very reasonable but to others 200 yards per year is too much! Its the balance which has to be right for everybody It isn't unreasonable Peter and I believe the NBTA are on a hiding to nothing disagreeing with it. That said however,they are prepared to get off their ass and do something its their agenda that wants moderating.
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Apr 30, 2016 17:55:26 GMT
The 20 miles per year thing is a joke. No WAY can that be considered continuous cruising! That's continuous having kids at school and Dad at work locally innit.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Apr 30, 2016 18:01:14 GMT
Why does nobody ever seem to be able to tell the difference between cruising 20 miles per year and cruising for a year over a 20 mile range?
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Apr 30, 2016 18:06:38 GMT
Why does nobody ever seem to be able to tell the difference between cruising 20 miles per year and cruising for a year over a 20 mile range? i think most people know the difference D9. Yes, you can travel a thousand miles a year and still remain within a 20 mile range. However, it is still not continuous cruising and therefore remains a joke. That cruising pattern is a family with work and school commitments (Or a 'health' issue, which may or may not be genuine).
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Apr 30, 2016 18:17:16 GMT
Yes, you can travel a thousand miles a year and still remain within a 20 mile range. However, it is still not continuous cruising and therefore remains a joke. That cruising pattern is a family with work and school commitments (Or a 'health' issue, which may or may not be genuine). That is a matter of opinion. Personally I think that is a sufficient range to continuously cruise within.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 30, 2016 18:52:43 GMT
I get a lot less agitated about "continuous moorers" than most, although I do understand that if it was permissible to leave a boat on the towpath indefinitely then nobody would pay to moor in a marina and there would be thousands more boats along the cut to have to pass on tick-over.
|
|
|
Post by loafer on Apr 30, 2016 18:53:47 GMT
The licenses are very similar - but the serial number will reveal you as a self-declared CC-er, who agrees to abide by whatever rules are applied by the owners of the pitch.
Maybe we should look at the definition of CC-ers!
I'm not fighting for wider cruising ranges really, I'm just fighting the free-for-all idea!
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Apr 30, 2016 19:04:23 GMT
I get a lot less agitated about "continuous moorers" than most, although I do understand that if it was permissible to leave a boat on the towpath indefinitely then nobody would pay to moor in a marina and there would be thousands more boats along the cut to have to pass on tick-over. I think a lot of people would still stay in marinas, I know I would, mainly because of the mains electric, security of my boat and secure parking.
|
|